General News Thread

[Parafox]

10 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Stop paying them benefits for minor mental health issues which apparently stop them working.

Yes, up to a point.

 

My daughter has a range of MH disorders and is incapable of working and relies entirely on PiP and other benefits.

 

She won't leave her flat. She has diagnosed paranoia and suffers with sociopathic disorder which, combined with paranoia, means she feels everyone outside is going to do her harm so she becomes ultra defensive and that results in aggression to others because she is scared of them, albeit being irrational to you and me.

 

She was called in for a re-assessment recently and the "professional" who assessed her decided that because she could apply her nail varnish herself meant she was capable of living independently and therefore didn't qualify for full PiP.

 

Sadly the assessment process is deeply flawed. And so many vulnerable individuals are being let down just as equally many are working the system.

 

 

[Wymsey]

42 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Yes, up to a point.

 

My daughter has a range of MH disorders and is incapable of working and relies entirely on PiP and other benefits.

 

She won't leave her flat. She has diagnosed paranoia and suffers with sociopathic disorder which, combined with paranoia, means she feels everyone outside is going to do her harm so she becomes ultra defensive and that results in aggression to others because she is scared of them, albeit being irrational to you and me.

 

She was called in for a re-assessment recently and the "professional" who assessed her decided that because she could apply her nail varnish herself meant she was capable of living independently and therefore didn't qualify for full PiP.

 

Sadly the assessment process is deeply flawed. And so many vulnerable individuals are being let down just as equally many are working the system.

 

 

Could she possibly work from home like, I.e., call-taking etc - which could give her some confidence and feels fulfilled?

 

They're horrible diagnosis' and have sympathy for both her and you/Partner.

[Parafox]

26 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Could she possibly work from home like, I.e., call-taking etc - which could give her some confidence and feels fulfilled?

 

They're horrible diagnosis' and have sympathy for both her and you/Partner.

Simply no.  She can't maintain any level of connectivity or a basic relationship with anyone, even us. We're constantly subject to threats to harm or attack us via voicemails (We've blocked her on our phones but voicemails still get through).

It's constant

Her MH team are aware. But are unable to stop her. 100 plus vile messages today alone. Tomorrow, the same..

[foxfanazer]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

Simply no.  She can't maintain any level of connectivity or a basic relationship with anyone, even us. We're constantly subject to threats to harm or attack us via voicemails (We've blocked her on our phones but voicemails still get through).

It's constant

Her MH team are aware. But are unable to stop her. 100 plus vile messages today alone. Tomorrow, the same..

Mate I can't even imagine how heartbreaking that is for you. That poor girl 

[Jon the Hat]

8 hours ago, Parafox said:

Yes, up to a point.

 

My daughter has a range of MH disorders and is incapable of working and relies entirely on PiP and other benefits.

 

She won't leave her flat. She has diagnosed paranoia and suffers with sociopathic disorder which, combined with paranoia, means she feels everyone outside is going to do her harm so she becomes ultra defensive and that results in aggression to others because she is scared of them, albeit being irrational to you and me.

 

She was called in for a re-assessment recently and the "professional" who assessed her decided that because she could apply her nail varnish herself meant she was capable of living independently and therefore didn't qualify for full PiP.

 

Sadly the assessment process is deeply flawed. And so many vulnerable individuals are being let down just as equally many are working the system.

Your daughter's type of case is categorically not what I am talking about, as she is clearly very unwell. You and your family have my sympathy.   It's no doubt difficult to get it right for the assessors, but in some ways the pressure on the  budget from the nonsense cases is what makes them way too harsh on the cases deserving of attention.

[123]

11 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

I was looking at how much is spent on housing benefit. Are private landlords making a mint at our expense. Certainly not against people getting help but perhaps private rents are a rip off?

Hello.

Private landlord here.

Wherever there is Government money (actually taxpayers money) there is a grab effect.

None more so than the absolute machine which is immigration which is fuelling much of the property management and legal system. That is a phenomenal cash machine which is all going to the private sector. NGOs doing very well.out of it as well btw

On normal social housing, the reason the private market is involved at all is because there is not enough social housing, or actually enough housing at all.

More people means more houses, if you don't build houses prices go up.

Reduce or hold populations and prices reduce or track steady.

If prices go up then so must rents as mortgages need to be paid.

A landlord is not going to rent to the council for social housing on a low return, the capital would be better used elsewhere. Commercial landlords have bills to pay like any other company, private landlords have tax to pay, pensions to support and families to feed.

The margins are wafer thin, and the latest tax raid is making so many people sell up or get out.

Near me two guys are disposing 9 properties, it is now pointless.

Thats nine less properties for people who want to rent or need to rent, eg young professionals moving between jobs.

A sensible government, of which there hasn't been one for decades, would ensure that population growth is managed, house building / planning system is commensurate, social housing is modeled on need and incentives for a fluid housing market are in place.

 

 

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, 123 said:

Hello.

Private landlord here.

Wherever there is Government money (actually taxpayers money) there is a grab effect.

None more so than the absolute machine which is immigration which is fuelling much of the property management and legal system. That is a phenomenal cash machine which is all going to the private sector. NGOs doing very well.out of it as well btw

On normal social housing, the reason the private market is involved at all is because there is not enough social housing, or actually enough housing at all.

More people means more houses, if you don't build houses prices go up.

Reduce or hold populations and prices reduce or track steady.

If prices go up then so must rents as mortgages need to be paid.

A landlord is not going to rent to the council for social housing on a low return, the capital would be better used elsewhere. Commercial landlords have bills to pay like any other company, private landlords have tax to pay, pensions to support and families to feed.

The margins are wafer thin, and the latest tax raid is making so many people sell up or get out.

Near me two guys are disposing 9 properties, it is now pointless.

Thats nine less properties for people who want to rent or need to rent, eg young professionals moving between jobs.

A sensible government, of which there hasn't been one for decades, would ensure that population growth is managed, house building / planning system is commensurate, social housing is modeled on need and incentives for a fluid housing market are in place.

 

 

Thank you for your detailed reply.  I've often posted on here that there should be far more social housing at reasonable rents. Right to Buy without replacing the stock has been a disaster for our country.

[JonnyBoy]

2 hours ago, 123 said:

Hello.

Private landlord here.

Wherever there is Government money (actually taxpayers money) there is a grab effect.

None more so than the absolute machine which is immigration which is fuelling much of the property management and legal system. That is a phenomenal cash machine which is all going to the private sector. NGOs doing very well.out of it as well btw

On normal social housing, the reason the private market is involved at all is because there is not enough social housing, or actually enough housing at all.

More people means more houses, if you don't build houses prices go up.

Reduce or hold populations and prices reduce or track steady.

If prices go up then so must rents as mortgages need to be paid.

A landlord is not going to rent to the council for social housing on a low return, the capital would be better used elsewhere. Commercial landlords have bills to pay like any other company, private landlords have tax to pay, pensions to support and families to feed.

The margins are wafer thin, and the latest tax raid is making so many people sell up or get out.

Near me two guys are disposing 9 properties, it is now pointless.

Thats nine less properties for people who want to rent or need to rent, eg young professionals moving between jobs.

A sensible government, of which there hasn't been one for decades, would ensure that population growth is managed, house building / planning system is commensurate, social housing is modeled on need and incentives for a fluid housing market are in place.

 

 

Ditto, we are getting rid of ours next year, a new boiler wipes out any profit from the last couple of years. Increase rent? people moan.. sell up which reduces rental stock on the market which in turn drives the rent price up. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c17ydny8zyro

 

A South Korean court has sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to 30 years in jail for sending drones into North Korea.

Prosecutors argued that Yoon ordered the operation in October 2024 to provoke Pyongyang and create a pretext for his failed martial law bid later that year.

When Yoon declared martial law on 3 December, he had claimed he was protecting the country from "anti-state" forces that sympathised with North Korea. But it soon became clear he was driven by domestic troubles and he rolled back the order in the face of mass protests.

Yoon was impeached and is now serving time in prison after he was sentenced to life for insurrection over his botched martial law attempt.

 

They do know what to do with corrupt officials over there. It's unfortunate that the system allows so many of them to get to the top in the first place, though. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c17ydny8zyro

 

A South Korean court has sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to 30 years in jail for sending drones into North Korea.

Prosecutors argued that Yoon ordered the operation in October 2024 to provoke Pyongyang and create a pretext for his failed martial law bid later that year.

When Yoon declared martial law on 3 December, he had claimed he was protecting the country from "anti-state" forces that sympathised with North Korea. But it soon became clear he was driven by domestic troubles and he rolled back the order in the face of mass protests.

Yoon was impeached and is now serving time in prison after he was sentenced to life for insurrection over his botched martial law attempt.

 

They do know what to do with corrupt officials over there. It's unfortunate that the system allows so many of them to get to the top in the first place, though. 

And that, USA, is how you do it!

[foxfanazer]

 

 

 

I feel like it's been rather tense in here over the last week so we should all really listen to this song and take in the message 

 

 

[Robo61]

19 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

I was looking at how much is spent on housing benefit. Are private landlords making a mint at our expense. Certainly not against people getting help but perhaps private rents are a rip off?

Nearly all of our economic problems stem from the housing crisis,  instigated by Thatcher's right to buy scheme of the 80's and subsequent governments abject failure to provide able housing stock for its citizens.  A very high percentage of our increased benefit costs goes in housing benefit,  most of which goes to subsidise landlords. 

[davieG]

22 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

Nearly all of our economic problems stem from the housing crisis,  instigated by Thatcher's right to buy scheme of the 80's and subsequent governments abject failure to provide able housing stock for its citizens.  A very high percentage of our increased benefit costs goes in housing benefit,  most of which goes to subsidise landlords. 

Even the social house stock that still exists judging from the ones I used to see in New Parks the council doesn't have the money to maintain them properly.  It would help if some of the tenants looked after them better.

[oxford blue]

13 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

Nearly all of our economic problems stem from the housing crisis,  instigated by Thatcher's right to buy scheme of the 80's and subsequent governments abject failure to provide able housing stock for its citizens.  A very high percentage of our increased benefit costs goes in housing benefit,  most of which goes to subsidise landlords. 

RTB was a disaster for the social rented sector as Councils were initially only able to keep 25% of revenue; houses could not be replaced. Now, RTB is far more restrictive and compared to 1990 only a very small number of tenants will be able to exercise a RTB. Councils now have all the money to re-invest though.

 

Regarding Housing Costs in UC, the maximum amount that will be paid is the Local Housing Allowance rate . This is set at 30% of all rents for that type of property. This is designed to ensure that those receiving housing benefits can afford the bottom 30% of the private rental market in their area. In other words. 70% of rented property in any given area is likely unaffordable for those receiving help with housing costs. I am not sure I agree that landlords are subsidised. To ensure people are not homeless, a private rented sector and help with housing costs is necessary. There is insufficient social housing and this is always likely to be the case.

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

Even the social house stock that still exists judging from the ones I used to see in New Parks the council doesn't have the money to maintain them properly.  It would help if some of the tenants looked after them better.

A good point. I know council tenants that keep their homes  pristine. Imagine if councils had the money that goes to housing benefit for private landlords. Also what is now an old fashioned term house the respectable working class in council houses. People that have a pride in their home. 

[Foxdiamond]

Under Right to buy. 820,000 former council homes lost to the private rented sector apparently

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 minute ago, Foxdiamond said:

Under Right to buy. 820,000 former council homes lost to the private rented sector apparently

We could sell the rest of for war.

 

All this reminds me of...

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

If we have nukes as a deterrent to anyone attacking us, then either,

 

A) we don't need to spend money on military.

 

Or 

 

B) we should get rid of the nukes, as they clearly don't work.

 

Simple logic.

[Foxdiamond]

1 minute ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

If we have nukes as a deterrent to anyone attacking us, then either,

 

A) we don't need to spend money on military.

 

Or 

 

B) we should get rid of the nukes, as they clearly don't work.

 

Simple logic.

Or simplistic 

[Trav Le Bleu]

25 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Or simplistic 

Occam's razor.

[Foxdiamond]

20 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Occam's razor.

Perhaps you should be defence minister

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

If we have nukes as a deterrent to anyone attacking us, then either,

 

A) we don't need to spend money on military.

 

Or 

 

B) we should get rid of the nukes, as they clearly don't work.

 

Simple logic.

Eh. Defense spending isn't just for us, it's for nato and we should be capable of doing our fair share. The idea that we'll just nuke whoever steps foot in somewhere like Poland for example is at a minimum, bananas. 

[Lionator]

We don’t have nukes, none of them work. Listen to GlennDiesen.  

[Robo61]

3 hours ago, oxford blue said:

RTB was a disaster for the social rented sector as Councils were initially only able to keep 25% of revenue; houses could not be replaced. Now, RTB is far more restrictive and compared to 1990 only a very small number of tenants will be able to exercise a RTB. Councils now have all the money to re-invest though.

 

Regarding Housing Costs in UC, the maximum amount that will be paid is the Local Housing Allowance rate . This is set at 30% of all rents for that type of property. This is designed to ensure that those receiving housing benefits can afford the bottom 30% of the private rental market in their area. In other words. 70% of rented property in any given area is likely unaffordable for those receiving help with housing costs. I am not sure I agree that landlords are subsidised. To ensure people are not homeless, a private rented sector and help with housing costs is necessary. There is insufficient social housing and this is always likely to be the case.

I can agree that subsidised was not really a fair term,  but if there was a larger social housing sector all rents would be lower as private sector landlords would have to compete with social housing on cost.  Whilst it maybe true that we will always need a private rented sector,  it has grown way too large and the middle classed have taken advantage of the almost guaranteed investment returns available during the housing booms of the 90's and early 2000s.  Resulting in far fewer younger people being able to afford to buy and were therefore forced to rent,  putting rental prices up,  resulting in even bigger returns for those that invested at that time.  Now that the guaranteed return has disappeared those same people who have made vast sums over the last few are wishing to get out and complaining about government policy,  when it was government policy of the 90's and early 2000's that almost solely responsible for those crazy investment returns.  In a normal market house prices would be crashing now but government can't afford to let that happen so I suspect the ambitious house building plans they won't be met as government policy will not be fully enacted as they wished.  I am afraid the country is stuck in a chicken and egg situation and unless a government is able and willing to come in a take some very serious pain in the short term,  then this country will continue to decline.  It seems to me that no party is offering that, least of all the one that seems to have the vote of those at most need to needing it at the  moment. 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

If we have nukes as a deterrent to anyone attacking us, then either,

 

A) we don't need to spend money on military.

 

Or 

 

B) we should get rid of the nukes, as they clearly don't work.

 

Simple logic.

 

2 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

Or simplistic 

 

43 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Eh. Defense spending isn't just for us, it's for nato and we should be capable of doing our fair share. The idea that we'll just nuke whoever steps foot in somewhere like Poland for example is at a minimum, bananas. 

What Trav said about nukes was reasonably simple but it also has a logical progression that hasn't really been addressed yet, rather just the rather more emotive argument of meeting NATO requirements because "it's the right thing to do". Perhaps some closer examination of the exact consequences if the UK doesn't fulfil such requirements should be considered.

 

To add:

 

23 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Additionally, I'm curious as to who exactly the UK would war with or need a highly expensive conventional deterrent from that could have a positive and not catastrophic outcome. 

 

Most of the big names mentioned have nuclear weapons, so does the UK, and any conventional conflict with them would inevitably escalate to that, so...

This still stands. 

 

Edit: I know that the UK only having the capacity to go 0-nuke 'em removes a lot of strategic flexibility from any conventional response. But I'm not sure how much the current issues would affect such a conventional response against (smaller) parties that don't have nukes anyway. 

Edited 19 hours ago by leicsmac